Kurds: Allies in war, absent in peace... until when?

When wars erupt in the Middle East, the Kurds are often portrayed as indispensable allies. Their fighters are praised, their sacrifices are recognized, and their role is described as essential to regional stability. Yet when the guns fall silent and political settlements begin, Kurdish aspirations frequently fade from the negotiating table. This recurring pattern has shaped Kurdish perceptions of international politics for decades and continues to raise a difficult question: are the Kurds genuine partners in shaping the future of the region, or merely strategic actors whose importance ends when the immediate crisis is over?

The Kurdish issue is not confined to a single country. It is a cross-border question that extends across Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Turkey. Despite the different political realities in each of these states, many Kurds share a common historical memory: they have repeatedly found themselves at the center of regional conflicts, only to discover that their political concerns receive far less attention once peace negotiations begin.

The roots of this perception stretch back to the experience of Mustafa Barzani and the collapse of the Kurdish movement following the Algiers Agreement of 1975. For many Kurds, that episode became a symbol of the gap between strategic cooperation and lasting political commitment. It reinforced a belief that international support can be highly conditional and vulnerable to changing geopolitical calculations.

In Iraq, Kurdish forces played a decisive role in confronting ISIS. The Peshmerga became one of the most effective ground forces fighting the organization and earned widespread international recognition. Yet many of the core political disputes affecting the Kurdistan Region remained unresolved after the military campaign ended. For many Kurds, this reinforced the idea that military partnership does not automatically translate into political progress.

A similar experience emerged in Syria. Kurdish-led forces became the most effective local partner of the United States and the international coalition against ISIS. Their contribution was widely acknowledged, and they paid a heavy price in lives and resources. However, shifting regional priorities later exposed the limits of military alliances that were not accompanied by clear and durable political guarantees. As a result, many Syrian Kurds felt that the burden of war had not been matched by an equivalent commitment during the search for political solutions.

Recent tensions involving Iran revived similar concerns. While the United States and its allies avoided direct large-scale ground involvement, discussions in policy and media circles frequently highlighted the potential role of local opposition groups in increasing pressure on Tehran. This inevitably raised questions among Kurdish communities. Would they once again be expected to confront a powerful state without meaningful guarantees or sustained support? Such concerns are rooted not in political hesitation but in a realistic assessment of the risks involved. Any open confrontation with a state as powerful as Iran could have devastating consequences for Kurdish populations if external backing proved temporary or insufficient.

In Turkey, the Kurdish question presents another dimension of the same challenge. Despite being one of the most significant political and social issues in the country, it often receives less international attention than other regional concerns. International positions are frequently shaped by strategic relations with Ankara, leaving Kurdish political and cultural demands secondary to broader geopolitical considerations.

The common thread connecting these experiences is not necessarily hostility toward the Kurds. States act according to interests, security priorities, and strategic calculations. The problem, from a Kurdish perspective, is the recurring imbalance between wartime cooperation and peacetime inclusion. Kurdish actors are often viewed as valuable partners in managing conflicts, yet they rarely enjoy the same level of participation when political settlements are designed.

This perception has produced a deep sense of caution within Kurdish political thought. Many Kurds no longer measure international relationships solely by promises made during crises. Instead, they increasingly judge them by the willingness of partners to support political inclusion, rights, and long-term stability once military objectives have been achieved.

The lesson of recent decades is clear: military partnership alone is not enough. Lasting stability requires political inclusion, recognition, and meaningful participation in shaping the future. For policymakers in Washington, London, Brussels, and regional capitals, the Kurdish experience offers an important strategic lesson. Sustainable peace cannot be built by relying on a people during war while excluding them from the architecture of peace.

The Kurds have repeatedly demonstrated that they are willing and able to contribute to regional security. The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to treat them not only as allies in times of conflict, but also as stakeholders in times of peace.